A sound bite is designed for two main purposes:
- To convey a message in verbal "shorthand;" and
- To get quoted by reporters
Unfortunately, as a technique it can, and often is, used inappropriately. The wording is highly quotable, but the distillation of the message is deceptive or the comparison is invalid.
For example, earlier this month Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) equated President Bush's response to the events of 9-11 to German Chancellor Adolf Hitler's response to the burning of the German parliament building in 1933.
"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the communists for it and it put the leader of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."
After two House Republicans demanded a reprimand of Ellison, and the Anti-Defamation League asked for a retraction, "Mr. Ellison stood by his remarks...but said he did not intend to link the Bush administration to Nazi Germany," wrote Audrey Hudson in the Washington Times. "In an interview with the Associated Press...Mr. Ellison backed down and said, 'In hindsight, I wouldn't have used that reference point.'"
I applaud the congressman for his new awareness. Still, I wonder why this is an issue of hindsight rather than foresight. Using a Hitler comparison does create a sound bite that gets attention. But it's offensive. It trivializes the enormity of Nazi rule. [See a related post when Senator Durban, D-Illinois, invoked a Hitler comparison.]
Recently, the NAACP buried the "n-word." It's time for all, and especially politicians, to bury the "H-word." Limit Hitler to discussions of Nazi Germany and the holocaust. To do otherwise is to engage in sound bite malpractice.
Comments